pretty much every part of a rangefinder is precision engineered. The rangefinder mechanisms are MUCH more complicated and complex to assemble than an SLR camera. The parts have to be durable because if any slight thing goes wrong with a part, the whole system won't work. There's a reason why the cheapest of rangefinder M bodies (Voigtlander Bessa's) are still about $1000 new, and have an absolutely terrible reputation. RF coupling systems are intricate and prone to errors. Leica's are expensive because they are very durable. That is that all of these parts are made to last as long as possible, which brings up the price. Though they still run into far more problems than an SLR ever will.

Basically the rangefinder technology was an overcomplicated way to shoot. RF coupling mechanisms were required in order to get the viewfinder to adapt to the type of lenses used (which the mechanisms themselves are very expensive. SLR magic sells an M mount lens for $4200 with RF coupling, and $2000 without) and focus properly. The focusing system is much more intricate than merely seeing what the lens would see, because you physically can't. The system is very intricate in order to mimic focusing.

it's kind of like how mirrorless cameras simplified the process of the SLR system. Rangefinders were a concept that worked for the time, but aside from a few quirks don't really have an advantage over an SLR system. The technology is dated and expensive to produce, and very few people would actually prefer to use it. Thus it is a niche product, though still produced in the same high quality standard that leica has always done. but basically high quality standards (hand made, very durable parts used in lieu of cheap ones), niche, and lack of competitors drive up leica prices. they aren't on top as they used to be, and if it wasn't for a dedicated fanbase they would not be a company at all.

pretty much every part of a rangefinder is precision engineered. The rangefinder mechanisms are MUCH more complicated and complex to assemble than an SLR camera. The parts have to be durable because if any slight thing goes wrong with a part, the whole system won't work. There's a reason why the cheapest of rangefinder M bodies (Voigtlander Bessa's) are still about $1000 new, and have an absolutely terrible reputation. RF coupling systems are intricate and prone to errors. Leica's are expensive because they are very durable. That is that all of these parts are made to last as long as possible, which brings up the price. Though they still run into far more problems than an SLR ever will.

Basically the rangefinder technology was an overcomplicated way to shoot. RF coupling mechanisms were required in order to get the viewfinder to adapt to the type of lenses used (which the mechanisms themselves are very expensive. SLR magic sells an M mount lens for $4200 with RF coupling, and $2000 without) and focus properly. The focusing system is much more intricate than merely seeing what the lens would see, because you physically can't. The system is very intricate in order to mimic focusing.

it's kind of like how mirrorless cameras simplified the process of the SLR system. Rangefinders were a concept that worked for the time, but aside from a few quirks don't really have an advantage over an SLR system. The technology is dated and expensive to produce, and very few people would actually prefer to use it. Thus it is a niche product, though still produced in the same high quality standard that leica has always done. but basically high quality standards (hand made, very durable parts used in lieu of cheap ones), niche, and lack of competitors drive up leica prices. they aren't on top as they used to be, and if it wasn't for a dedicated fanbase they would not be a company at all.

That's not the same. It doesn't have a true rangefinder focusing system, nor does it have couplings because of a fixed lens, and different interiors. It's pretty much an entry rangefinder, and all leicas are like mark 1's. Very different animals.

pretty much every part of a rangefinder is precision engineered. The rangefinder mechanisms are MUCH more complicated and complex to assemble than an SLR camera. The parts have to be durable because if any slight thing goes wrong with a part, the whole system won't work. There's a reason why the cheapest of rangefinder M bodies (Voigtlander Bessa's) are still about $1000 new, and have an absolutely terrible reputation. RF coupling systems are intricate and prone to errors. Leica's are expensive because they are very durable. That is that all of these parts are made to last as long as possible, which brings up the price. Though they still run into far more problems than an SLR ever will.

Basically the rangefinder technology was an overcomplicated way to shoot. RF coupling mechanisms were required in order to get the viewfinder to adapt to the type of lenses used (which the mechanisms themselves are very expensive. SLR magic sells an M mount lens for $4200 with RF coupling, and $2000 without) and focus properly. The focusing system is much more intricate than merely seeing what the lens would see, because you physically can't. The system is very intricate in order to mimic focusing.

it's kind of like how mirrorless cameras simplified the process of the SLR system. Rangefinders were a concept that worked for the time, but aside from a few quirks don't really have an advantage over an SLR system. The technology is dated and expensive to produce, and very few people would actually prefer to use it. Thus it is a niche product, though still produced in the same high quality standard that leica has always done. but basically high quality standards (hand made, very durable parts used in lieu of cheap ones), niche, and lack of competitors drive up leica prices. they aren't on top as they used to be, and if it wasn't for a dedicated fanbase they would not be a company at all.

Yep that's what I meant. I don't think they are a good system for modern photography, much the way I see dslrs being mostly killed by mirrorless in the next decade. times change and it makes less sense to produce complex systems when such easy solutions exist today. Rangefinders are just so complex it's almost trivial to produce.

Then you will be disappointed with the shift in the next 10 years. Having an actual accurate view of what the final image will look like is invaluable. I suggest trying a sony a65 or a77, the ones inside them are really incredible. There are just so many advantages over an OVF, the SLR will go the way of the rangefinder and TLR

Then you will be disappointed with the shift in the next 10 years. Having an actual accurate view of what the final image will look like is invaluable. I suggest trying a sony a65 or a77, the ones inside them are really incredible. There are just so many advantages over an OVF, the SLR will go the way of the rangefinder and TLR

Then you will be disappointed with the shift in the next 10 years. Having an actual accurate view of what the final image will look like is invaluable. I suggest trying a sony a65 or a77, the ones inside them are really incredible. There are just so many advantages over an OVF, the SLR will go the way of the rangefinder and TLR

Give me an EVF with the same dynamic range as my eye and I might try it.

Then you will be disappointed with the shift in the next 10 years. Having an actual accurate view of what the final image will look like is invaluable. I suggest trying a sony a65 or a77, the ones inside them are really incredible. There are just so many advantages over an OVF, the SLR will go the way of the rangefinder and TLR

Give me an EVF with the same dynamic range as my eye and I might try it.

You don't need an EVF with the same dynamic range as an OVF, because the sensors don't have that much dynamic range. With current sensors topping out at 13 EV stops, the EVF makes more sense in showing a final image as opposed to using an OVF, where you can't see the realistic dynamic range.

And bopie, hasselblad is actually working on a mirrorless medium format camera allegedly, which I think makes sense for the format.

I know I'm pretty drastically different in opinion from you guys, but there is a definite shift occurring already. For aps-c sensors, try out the a57 at best buy or something versus a d3100 and notice the massive difference in viewfinder size. This is the first place where the technology will make some big strides, in the low end dslr market.

You don't need an EVF with the same dynamic range as an OVF, because the sensors don't have that much dynamic range. With current sensors topping out at 13 EV stops, the EVF makes more sense in showing a final image as opposed to using an OVF, where you can't see the realistic dynamic range.

And bopie, hasselblad is actually working on a mirrorless medium format camera allegedly, which I think makes sense for the format.

I know I'm pretty drastically different in opinion from you guys, but there is a definite shift occurring already. For aps-c sensors, try out the a57 at best buy or something versus a d3100 and notice the massive difference in viewfinder size. This is the first place where the technology will make some big strides, in the low end dslr market.

actually, this isn't the first time I've read this. Some photo-blog guy or something was also talking about how he feels that this is the next step in "camera evolution" (by that I mean mirrorless or hybrids)

Yeah mirrorless is garnering a pretty serious following. Sony abandoned the SLR design altogether, as have Olympus and Panasonic. Canon just unveiled their new mirrorless system, and while I don't find it to be anything that hasn't been done already, is gaining massive interest among consumers. For a digital format, moving to all digital components just makes sense, especially as batteries and OLED technologies improve.

I'm not dissing DSLR's as I enjoy them, but times will change eventually, and I for one am excited

A Monday afternoon summit conference at N-Photo Towers has produced a series of ground-breaking ideas for future Nikon D-SLRs. Our criteria? It has to be technically possible, genuinely useful or jaw-droppingly clever. Prepare to be amazed as we reveal our vision for the future…

1. Electronic level information embedded in EXIF data
Many Nikons already have electronic levels, and it surely wouldn’t be difficult to encode the tilt of the camera at the time the shot was taken into the image’s EXIF data. Your software could then correct any tilt automatically!
Angela Nicholson, Head of Testing

2. Touch-screen displays
Not for taking control of the camera completely, but for quickly selecting menu options, or for zooming in on image in playback mode. It would save lots of boring button-pressing. The on-screen interface on the D3000/D5000 series is crying out for touch-screen control!
Amy Davies, Test Team

3. In-camera graduated filters
If Nikon can apply D-Lighting in-camera, then a graduated filter effect would surely be easy. It could either be applied as the shot’s taken (like Active D-Lighting) or later on as a Retouch option.
Chris Rutter, Technique Editor, Digital Camera

4. Built-in ND (neutral density) filter
Just to bring the ISO down to ISO 50 or 25, to help get motion blur effects or shallow depth of field in bright light. Not sure how it could be done, since the photosites on the sensor would presumably reach saturation point, but it would be really useful.
Ben Brain, Editor, Practical Photoshop/Chris Rutter, Digital Camera

5. Detachable LCD/remote
What about a clip-on rear LCD which incorporates a wireless transmitter? You could leave it fixed to the camera to shoot in the normal way, or unclip it and walk away for remote operation.
Rod Lawton, Technique Editor, N-Photo

6. A simple, no-frills manual SLR!
Perfect for students and colleges, and a welcome return to basic photography for the rest of us. No auto-exposure, only manual shutter speed and aperture control. I might stretch to white balance control and maybe even autofocus, but only one single AF point. Nikon could call it the FM-D!
Ben Brain

7. Voice commands
You could tell your camera what to do, such as “centre AF point”, “lock focus” and “shoot in 5 seconds”. That would allow hands-free shooting, and you could even bark your orders from a distance.
Peter Travers, Editor, PhotoPlus

8. AF points right to the edge of the screen
Apparently there are technical reasons why this hasn’t been done so far, but it would be a really useful feature nonetheless. You can do this in Live View, but it’s not the same.
Chris George, Editor, N-Photo/Angela Nicholson, Head of Testing

9. Built-in 3G
Your Nikon could be its own wi-fi access point! That’s not to say your Nikon needs to turn in to a phone – there’s plenty of use for 3G technology beyond making phone calls. It would also be able to add location data to images, so there would be no need for a GPS device.
Chris George, N-Photo

10. Instant reset button
How many times have you accidentally taken a whole batch of shots at unsuitable settings left over from the shoot before? All it needs is an external reset button (or combination of two buttons to avoid accidental use) which reverts the camera to default everyday settings.
Rod Lawton, N-Photo[/release]

The voice command and 3g is a little silly in my mind. I guess if you take photos for sports and instantly want them shared/saved on a computer that would be good. That FM-D concept does sound fun though.

The leveling idea is genius, I hope that is actually implemented. Such a cool idea.

Built in ND filters are a good idea, but technically very difficult. Offering ISO speeds of 25 (software of course) are dangerous to the sensor as it is putting an excess amount of light on it. I'm guessing the mirror box would need to be altered in order for built in ND filters. The Sony f700 has built in ND filters and is mirrorless, which was thought to be impossible but was done, so who knows?

The rest of the list seems odd, I don't really understand it. An all manual digital camera, seems weird although enough external controls would be interesting. Bundle it with a redesigned 35mm f1.8G that has selectable aperture and a classic design and you will have takers easily.
Touch screens are nifty for focusing, so I say yes to that but only capacitive and an external button to disable.
AF points at the edge of the frame is useless, just recompose after focusing.
3G would be expensive, just have an option to teather to a phone.
Reset button had been done before, by Minolta on the 9xi. A very welcome feature, but nothing new.

I think phone tethering and an open firmware would be great camera innovations, I mean look at the GH2 and how much modding has helped the sales of that. And phone tethering would be cool if it could do live view from a distance, be used as a remote, and able to upload pictures off of a wireless signal.